E.Muthulakshmi Vs N.Pothirajan — Madras HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

E.Muthulakshmi Vs N.Pothirajan — Madras HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

The declaration of the learned Single Judge that the entire sale agreement dated 07.07.2015 (Document No. 4547/2015) is void is set aside to that extent; Writ Appeal partly allowed; no order as to costs; connected miscellaneous petition C.M.P.(MD)No.17646 of 2025 closed.

Issue for consideration

Whether the learned Single Judge was right in cancelling/declaring the entire sale agreement (2 acres and 32 cents, Document No. 4547/2015 dated 07.07.2015) null and void when the settlement deed affected by the unilateral cancellation pertained only to 96 cents (96¾ cents).

Court's answer

On perusal of the documents, the settlement deed executed by the third respondent in favour of the first respondent pertains only to an extent of 96¾ cents, whereas the sale agreement between the appellant and the third respondent relates to 2 acres and 32 cents.

Ratio / Principle

Even assuming that the unilateral cancellation of the settlement deed is not valid in the eye of law, it would operate only in respect of the settled 96¾ cents and cannot reach the larger extent covered by the agreement; therefore the learned Single Judge was not right in declaring the entire agreement dated 07.07.2015 (Document No. 4547/2015) as null and void.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Appeal — Madurai Bench of Madras High Court (N. Sathish Kumar & M. Jothiraman JJ.), decided 08.04.2026 — partly allowed. Appellant E. Muthulakshmi challenged the Single Judge's order in W.P.(MD)No.18512 of 2024 dated 09.01.2025, which had declared null and void both the unilateral cancellation of a settlement deed (Document No. 2627/2014, dated 21.04.2024) executed by the third respondent (Sadaiyan @ Arisadaiyan) and the registered sale agreement (Document No. 4547/2015, dated 07.07.2015) executed by him in favour of the appellant, the first respondent (N. Pothirajan) having relied on the Full Bench decision in Latif Estate Line India Ltd. vs. Hadeeja Ammal and others, AIR 2011 (Mad) 66. The Division Bench found the settlement deed covered only 96¾ cents while the sale agreement covered 2 acres and 32 cents, and held that even assuming the unilateral cancellation of the settlement deed is not valid in the eye of law, it would operate only over the settled extent; accordingly the Single Judge was not right in declaring the entire agreement null and void, and that declaration (to that extent) was set aside. No costs; connected miscellaneous petition closed.

W.A.(MD)No.3065 of 2025

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED: 08.04.2026

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN

W.A.(MD)No.3065 of 2025 C.M.P.(MD)No.17646 of 2025

E.Muthulakshmi

... Appellant

Vs.

N.Pothirajan

The Sub Registrar, Theni, Theni District.

Sadaiyan Alias Arisadaiyan

Ponnathal

Murugeswari

Velmurugan

Ramayee

Panja

Lakshmanan .... Respondents

1/6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.A.(MD)No.3065 of 2025

PRAYER:- Writ Appeal – filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent,

PRAYER:- Writ Appeal – filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the order passed by this Court in W.P.(MD)No.18512 of 2024 dated 09.01.2025.

For Appellant : Mr.M.S.Suresh Kumar For Respondents : Mr.R.Venkateswaran for R1 Mr.A.Baskaran, Addl. Govt. Pleader for R2

JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.)

The present Writ Appeal has been filed challenging the order of the learned Single Judge, whereby the unilateral cancellation of the settlement deed executed in Document No. 2627/2014, dated 21.04.2024, and the sale agreement registered vide Document No. 4547/2015, dated 07.07.2015, were declared null and void.

2. The first respondent filed a Writ Petition seeking to declare the unilateral cancellation of the settlement deed executed by the third respondent, as well as the sale agreement executed by the third respondent in favour of the appellant, as null and void. The learned

2/6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.A.(MD)No.3065 of 2025

Single Judge, relying on the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in Latif Estate Line India Ltd. vs. Hadeeja Ammal and others , reported in AIR 2011 (Mad) 66 , held that the unilateral cancellation of the settlement deed executed by the third respondent is void and also non-suited the sale agreement dated 07.07.2015 executed by the third respondent in favour of the appellant. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant has filed the present Writ Appeal.

3 . The only grievance of the appellant is that the settlement deed pertains only to 96 cents, whereas the agreement relates to 2 acres and 32 cents. However, the learned Single Judge, while allowing the Writ Petition, has cancelled the entire sale agreement.

4 . We have also perused the settlement deed executed by the third respondent in favour of the first respondent and the agreement entered into between the parties, viz., the appellant and the third respondent. Upon such perusal, it is evident that the settlement deed pertains only to an extent of 96¾ cents, whereas the sale agreement relates to an extent of 2 acres and 32 cents.

3/6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.A.(MD)No.3065 of 2025

5. In view of the above, even assuming that the unilateral cancellation of the settlement deed is not valid in the eye of law, the same would operate only in respect of 96¾ cents. However, the fact remains that the agreement pertains to a larger extent. Therefore, the learned Single Judge was not right in declaring the entire agreement as null and void. Hence, to that extent, the judgment of the learned Single Judge declaring the agreement dated 07.07.2015, vide Document No. 4547/2015, as void is set aside, and the Writ Appeal is partly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

[N.S.K., J.] & [M.J.R., J.] 08.04.2026

Index : Yes/No NCC : Yes/No

vsm

4/6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.A.(MD)No.3065 of 2025

To

The Sub Registrar, Theni, Theni District.

5/6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.A.(MD)No.3065 of 2025

N.SATHISH KUMAR, J. AND M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.

vsm

W.A.(MD)No.3065 of 2025

08.04.2026

6/6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis